Saturday, December 29, 2012

We've seen a lot of recent NLRB action touching
on social media issues.But what’s an
employer supposed to do with all of this information?Let’s take this in some bite-sized chunks,
shall we?

First, an employer has to understand
the general kinds and sources of the guidance, decisions, or information all
the excitement has been about.Generally, we have:

Reports or Memorandum from the Office of the
NLRB’s acting General Counsel.Think of
the GC’s office as a kind of “prosecutor’s office” – that is, the enforcement
arm of the agency. These reports or memoranda are guidance documents. The GC’s
opinion is valuable, but these aren’t binding on the NLRB, and not the same
thing as an NLRB decision.

ALJ Decisions.If a charge is filed with an NLRB
Regional Office and the investigation leads to formal action, then a complaint
is filed. An Administrative Law Judge presides and issues the initial
decision.A party may appeal that
decision by filing exceptions and to transfer the case to the Board.

Board Decisions.So, NLRB decisions are issued after
a party appeals an ALJ decision and the Board renders its own conclusion.In other words, a Board decision carries more
weight than an ALJ decision.

Court Decisions.Board decisions can be
appealed to federal courts.So, even
when we have an actual NLRB decision, keep in mind it’s still not necessarily the final say.

Second, an employer should
understand the context of the more specific documents and filings we’ve been
reading about in the press regarding NLRB action and social media, and the
context in which that information is released.Generally, we have:

Guidance
documents out of the NLRB Office of the General Counsel.The excitement ramped up in summer 2011, when
the GC issued its first report summarizing investigations and outcomes in 14
cases involving social media. In January
2012, the General Counsel issued an updated report, and by May, issued its
third report in a year.

ALJ
Decisions.We’ve also seen a number
of ALJ decisions handed down recently.

Board
Decisions.In September of 2012, we
saw the first two Board decisions addressing social media policies:the Costco
decision issued on September 7, 2012, and the Karl Knauz Motors decisions issued on September 28, 2012.Of course, we also have the Hispanics United decision just issued on
December 14, 2012 that I just blogged about yesterday.

Other
principles.We also have some
general principles being pulled from complaints filed against employers, but
settled before ever resolved.Some
commentators and lawyers have extrapolated bits and pieces from actions like
that, where it may make sense do so (generally trying to err on the side of
being most prudent).

Third, employers should understand
how freak-fast this area of law really is developing.Just to illustrate the kind of rapid changes
we’ve been seeing (and the interplay among the various kinds of
documents):the General Counsel’s May
30, 2012 report discusses seven recent cases.On the same day that report
was issued, an ALJ issued a decision in one of the cases discussed within the
GC’s report.In other words, the May 30,
2012 GC guidance was at least arguably outdated on the very date it was issued!

Taking all these principles together may help
employers process and apply the flurry of NLRB-related information flooding
inboxes these days.

When reading a tip or interpretation, pay
attention to the framework and context. Sometimes an online summary fails to
clearly explain what kind of document is even being examined!It’s difficult (if not impossible) to weigh the
relative importance without knowing the context. Being an educated consumer of
information allows more effective policy drafting.Very slight wording changes and nuances can
leave a well-intentioned employer in a lurch.

Much of the emphasis has been on the General
Counsel’s advice and guidance.Keep in
mind that although valuable, it’s not binding.

Recognize the importance of staying on top of
recent developments in this area.It’s a
ridiculously fast developing area of the law.Policies should be updated and checked regularly, and be sure you are
(or your attorney is) familiar with the recent changes.

Friday, December 28, 2012

The National Labor Relations Board issued another decision that impacts both union and non-union employers who fire an employee because of online activities. In Hispanics United of Buffalo, the Board concluded that an employer violated the National Labor Relations Act when it fired five employees for remarks they made on Facebook in response to a coworker’s criticisms of their performance on the job.

According to the facts in the Board’s decision, Lydia Cruz-Moore often criticized other employees about their work habits. In October 2010, Cruz-Moore text messaged co-worker Marianna Cole-Rivera, saying she (Cruz-Moore) planned to take her complaints to the executive director. Cole-Rivera then posted the following message on her Facebook wall at 10:14 am:

Lydia Cruz, a coworker feels that we don’t help our clients enough at [work]. I about had it! My fellow coworkers how do u feel?

In less than 10 minutes after that, a second off-duty co-worker responded: “What the Hell, we don’t have a life as is, What else can we do???”

Within an hour, a third exclaimed: “Tell her to come do [my] f[*]cking job n c if I don’t do enough, this is just dum.”

A fourth employee responded 30 minutes later, and the discussion continued – and it also eventually involved a member of the HUB Board of Directors, the secretary to the executive director, and a response from Cruz-Moore herself.

Cruz-Moore then complained to the executive director about the Facebook comments, claiming she had been "slandered and defamed." After reviewing printouts of the Facebook comments, the executive director fired Cole-Rivera and the four co-workers who responded online -- saying the Facebook remarks violated the company's policy against "bullying and harassment" of another coworker.

The Board agreed with the administrative law judge's conclusion: the employees' Facebook comments amounted to concerted activity protected under Section 7 of the NLRA. The NLRB said that when applying long-standing Board principles and authority, "there should be no question that the activity engaged in by the five employees was concerted for the 'purpose of mutual aid or protection' as required by Section 7."

The Board went on to explain, "As set forth in her initial Facebook post, Cole-Rivera alerted fellow employees of another employee's complaint that they 'don't help our clients enough,' stated that she 'about had it' with the complaints, and solicited her coworkers' views about this criticism. By responding to this solicitation with comments of protect, Cole-Rivera's four coworkers made common cause with her, and, together, their actions were concerted" within the meaning of the Act.

Indeed, Section 7 protects employee discussion about job performance, and as the Board noted, "the Facebook comments plainly centered on that subject."

Just in September of this year, the Board issued its first two decisions addressing social media issues. You can bet we'll see much more development in this area in the coming months.

Megan Erickson Moritz

Search This Blog

Contact Megan by clicking here. But please read the disclaimer (below) BEFORE you send her an email!

Really important disclaimer

You’re probably asking yourself, “Aren’t disclaimers supposed to be in teeny-tiny print?” This disclaimer isn’t in 2-point font for three reasons: (1) no one likes eye strain, (2) disclaimers are important, so the “teeny-tiny font rule” doesn’t make much sense, and (3) I’m a rebel. In fact, as you may have noticed, I’m even going to use contractions. Of course, just because I’m not using words like “heretofore” doesn’t mean anything here has less legal effect.

(1) This site has links to information created and maintained by other people and organizations, and anything on those sites is out of my control. Bad hair days, slow pizza delivery, and El Niño are also out of my control. I’d really like to control bad hair days and am working on that one, but I don’t expect any real breakthroughs. I have no control over the sites referenced or listed as hypertext links in this blog, so keep in mind I’m not responsible for content on other web sites you might visit via this blog (or bad hair days, slow pizza delivery, or El Niño, for that matter). Because I don’t control those third-party sites, I can’t guarantee the accuracy, relevance, timeliness, or completeness of any information or privacy policies posted on those sites.

(2) Any references or links to other sites are provided for your convenience. References or links to other sites don't reflect their importance, and shouldn't be considered an endorsement of the organization, product, or services sponsoring those sites, the views expressed on the sites, or products or services offered on the sites.

(3) This blog doesn’t offer legal advice, so nothing in it should be construed as legal advice. The information on the site is only offered for informational or educational purposes. You shouldn’t act or rely on anything in this blog or use it as a substitute for legal advice from a licensed professional.

(4) The content on this blog may quickly become outdated – especially due to the nature of the topics covered (i.e., technology and the law), which necessarily evolve all the time. The materials and information on this blog are not guaranteed to be correct, complete, or timely.

(5) Nothing in the blog and nothing you or I do on this blog creates an attorney-client relationship between you and the blog; between you and me; between you and the BrownWinick law firm or any of its attorneys; or between you and Spiderman -- or anyone else for that matter. Even if you try to contact me or another attorney through the blog or post a comment on the blog, you’re still not creating an attorney-client relationship. In fact, I might not get a chance to respond to you, and that shouldn't stop you from finding another lawyer. Although I'm a lawyer, I'm not your lawyer until and unless there’s a written agreement specifically saying so.

(6) Please don’t send me confidential information unless we have a written agreement expressly saying we have formed an attorney-client relationship. Frankly, you really wouldn’t want to send me information before we’ve made sure there’s no conflict of interest anyway. (i.e., What if the party you want to sue is my client? It'd just be awkward -- and actually pretty darn bad -- for all of us if we didn't resolve that issue before you give me all the details of your legal problem.)

(7) This blog does not necessarily reflect the views of BrownWinick or any of its clients.

(8) If you’re here with any kind of tax question, you’re really in the wrong place. Kind of like looking for a bucket of boredom in the middle of an officially declared fun zone. (Not that this blog is an officially declared fun zone. That was just an analogy. But I do hope you like the blog, notwithstanding its lack of official “fun” declarations.) If you're looking for tax help, you should find a tax lawyer. I don’t think you’ll find an officially declared fun tax lawyer, but I do wish you luck in such a pursuit. Seriously, though: Taxpayers can’t rely upon anything in this blog to avoid penalties.